Saturday, February 28, 2009
Posturing for her Peeps
Soccer Dad has a recent posting on a predictable “typical anti-Israel boilerplate” rant by Joe Klein. What struck me was this bit from Klein’s piece:
“Clinton is right, for example: Israel's strangle-hold on the Gaza crossings gave Hamas a rationale for its rocketing of innocent Israeli civilians.”
To be fair, I’m guessing Mr. Klein is projecting what he considers an acceptable rationale for the shelling of Israeli civilians onto Ms. Clinton as I don’t remember her ever so formulating such a cause and effect. But he is probably referring to the same item these people are: Jewish Leaders Blast Clinton Over Israel Criticism
“In a swift about face from her views as New York's senator, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is now hammering Israel over its treatment of Palestinians in Gaza…On Thursday, as Secretary of State she had yet another about face in the form of angry messages demanding Israel speed up aid to Gaza. Jewish leaders are furious.”
But what exactly did our Secretary of State say? As near as I can tell, here is an early source for the story:
“Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has relayed messages to Israel in the past week expressing anger at obstacles Israel is placing to the delivery of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip.” Clinton warns Israel over delays in Gaza aid - Haaretz - Israel News
No cites to speeches, interviews or web site postings but I’ve read/heard no denial of the purported criticisms so I’m inclined to believe that our government did raise the matter. The reason that Klein blurb piqued my interest, though, is because I remember that Gaza is also accessible by Egypt. So what’s going on there?
"Egyptian authorities are continuing to prevent humanitarian aid from crossing the border into the Gaza Strip, according to local sources." Border Politics Slows Aid to Gaza
Egypt briefly opens border for 1,000 to cross from blockaded Gaza
And, of course, the rest of the so-called Arab world continues to act in stark contrast to the evil Zionists;
Arab league: Arab states haven't delivered on Gaza pledges
“The official says the money pledged in mid-January has been held up because of disagreements between rival Palestinian groups Fatah and Hamas about who should receive donations.”
But, by all means, let’s continue to hammer at the Israelis for their reticence in providing aid to a group of people whose primary focus is the extermination of those same Israelis.
“Clinton is right, for example: Israel's strangle-hold on the Gaza crossings gave Hamas a rationale for its rocketing of innocent Israeli civilians.”
To be fair, I’m guessing Mr. Klein is projecting what he considers an acceptable rationale for the shelling of Israeli civilians onto Ms. Clinton as I don’t remember her ever so formulating such a cause and effect. But he is probably referring to the same item these people are: Jewish Leaders Blast Clinton Over Israel Criticism
“In a swift about face from her views as New York's senator, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is now hammering Israel over its treatment of Palestinians in Gaza…On Thursday, as Secretary of State she had yet another about face in the form of angry messages demanding Israel speed up aid to Gaza. Jewish leaders are furious.”
But what exactly did our Secretary of State say? As near as I can tell, here is an early source for the story:
“Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has relayed messages to Israel in the past week expressing anger at obstacles Israel is placing to the delivery of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip.” Clinton warns Israel over delays in Gaza aid - Haaretz - Israel News
No cites to speeches, interviews or web site postings but I’ve read/heard no denial of the purported criticisms so I’m inclined to believe that our government did raise the matter. The reason that Klein blurb piqued my interest, though, is because I remember that Gaza is also accessible by Egypt. So what’s going on there?
"Egyptian authorities are continuing to prevent humanitarian aid from crossing the border into the Gaza Strip, according to local sources." Border Politics Slows Aid to Gaza
Egypt briefly opens border for 1,000 to cross from blockaded Gaza
And, of course, the rest of the so-called Arab world continues to act in stark contrast to the evil Zionists;
Arab league: Arab states haven't delivered on Gaza pledges
“The official says the money pledged in mid-January has been held up because of disagreements between rival Palestinian groups Fatah and Hamas about who should receive donations.”
But, by all means, let’s continue to hammer at the Israelis for their reticence in providing aid to a group of people whose primary focus is the extermination of those same Israelis.
Friday, February 27, 2009
A Steve Pearlstein Flashback
Steve Pearlstein – he of the no training in economics – has a column today calling on all of us to finally recognize the awesomeness of President Obama. We should do so for the good of the country:
“The essential insight of Barack Obama has been to see that these problems are inextricably linked. While his budget incorporates bold proposals to rescue the financial system, stabilize the auto industry, jump-start the economy, reform the health-care system and eventually bring down the federal deficit, he knows he's unlikely to win any of it if he cannot change the way business is done in Washington.”
And Steve Pearlstein knows “bold proposals to rescue the financial system”. August 2007:
"This is precisely why Fan and Fred were created, to provide liquidity to the mortgage markets when others fear to lend. So you would expect the Bush administration to work with them to expand their purchase of mortgages, and invite them temporarily into other areas, such as jumbo mortgages, where private markets are failing.
"Unfortunately, that would require the Fed and the administration, after having spent six years demonizing Fan and Fred and trying to reduce their size and influence, to eat a heaping serving of political crow. They would have to admit they were wrong when they said private banks could be relied upon to set lending standards and provide a reliable source of mortgage financing, in good times and bad. And they would have to acknowledge that giving Fan and Fred access to the government's backing might, in some instances, actually reduce the chance of a financial market meltdown, rather than increase it, as they so often predicted."
If I were a former member of the Bush Administration, I’d have that blurb front and center on my resume.
“The essential insight of Barack Obama has been to see that these problems are inextricably linked. While his budget incorporates bold proposals to rescue the financial system, stabilize the auto industry, jump-start the economy, reform the health-care system and eventually bring down the federal deficit, he knows he's unlikely to win any of it if he cannot change the way business is done in Washington.”
And Steve Pearlstein knows “bold proposals to rescue the financial system”. August 2007:
"This is precisely why Fan and Fred were created, to provide liquidity to the mortgage markets when others fear to lend. So you would expect the Bush administration to work with them to expand their purchase of mortgages, and invite them temporarily into other areas, such as jumbo mortgages, where private markets are failing.
"Unfortunately, that would require the Fed and the administration, after having spent six years demonizing Fan and Fred and trying to reduce their size and influence, to eat a heaping serving of political crow. They would have to admit they were wrong when they said private banks could be relied upon to set lending standards and provide a reliable source of mortgage financing, in good times and bad. And they would have to acknowledge that giving Fan and Fred access to the government's backing might, in some instances, actually reduce the chance of a financial market meltdown, rather than increase it, as they so often predicted."
If I were a former member of the Bush Administration, I’d have that blurb front and center on my resume.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
The Greener Grass of Foreign Economies
From the President’s speech on Tuesday:
“We know the country that harnesses the power of clean, renewable energy will lead the 21st century. And yet, it is China that has launched the largest effort in history to make their economy energy efficient. We invented solar technology, but we’ve fallen behind countries like Germany and Japan in producing it. New plug-in hybrids roll off our assembly lines, but they will run on batteries made in Korea.”
Yeah – if only we had their business acumen:
Japan factory output plunges, jobless rate jumps
“Industrial production at the nation's manufacturers plunged 9.6 percent in November, the largest drop since Tokyo began measuring such data in 1953, the government said Friday….The International Monetary Fund estimates that Japan's economy contracted 0.3 percent in 2008 and on Wednesday lowered its 2009 growth forecast for Japan to minus 2.6 percent.
German Unemployment Soars as Economic Crisis Deepens
“German unemployment jumped more than expected to 8.3 percent in January, the third straight rise and biggest increase in nearly four years as the fallout from the global slowdown hits Europe's biggest economy.”
South Korea Reverses Economic Growth Prediction
“The government is reversing a recent prediction of growth, saying the South Korean economy will contract for the first time since the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990's.”
But in the spirit of bi-partisanship, I’ll concede we may want to emulate a big part of China’s “largest effort in history to make their economy energy efficient”:
“As part of China's stimulus package to revive its economy, National Energy Administration Director Zhang Guobao announced that the nation plans to work on "at least" four nuclear power stations in 2009…Further boosting the development of nuclear power, according to Zhang, is an important way for China to restructure its energy mix...Compared with coal-fired, which now accounts for over two-thirds of the country's power generation, nuclear energy is more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly.” China's energy sector rises to global economic challenge
“We know the country that harnesses the power of clean, renewable energy will lead the 21st century. And yet, it is China that has launched the largest effort in history to make their economy energy efficient. We invented solar technology, but we’ve fallen behind countries like Germany and Japan in producing it. New plug-in hybrids roll off our assembly lines, but they will run on batteries made in Korea.”
Yeah – if only we had their business acumen:
Japan factory output plunges, jobless rate jumps
“Industrial production at the nation's manufacturers plunged 9.6 percent in November, the largest drop since Tokyo began measuring such data in 1953, the government said Friday….The International Monetary Fund estimates that Japan's economy contracted 0.3 percent in 2008 and on Wednesday lowered its 2009 growth forecast for Japan to minus 2.6 percent.
German Unemployment Soars as Economic Crisis Deepens
“German unemployment jumped more than expected to 8.3 percent in January, the third straight rise and biggest increase in nearly four years as the fallout from the global slowdown hits Europe's biggest economy.”
South Korea Reverses Economic Growth Prediction
“The government is reversing a recent prediction of growth, saying the South Korean economy will contract for the first time since the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990's.”
But in the spirit of bi-partisanship, I’ll concede we may want to emulate a big part of China’s “largest effort in history to make their economy energy efficient”:
“As part of China's stimulus package to revive its economy, National Energy Administration Director Zhang Guobao announced that the nation plans to work on "at least" four nuclear power stations in 2009…Further boosting the development of nuclear power, according to Zhang, is an important way for China to restructure its energy mix...Compared with coal-fired, which now accounts for over two-thirds of the country's power generation, nuclear energy is more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly.” China's energy sector rises to global economic challenge
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Some Quick Hits on The Speech
U.S. Stocks Fall in Early Trading
“Stocks fell sharply lower this morning after a new report showed that existing home sales fell to their lowest level in 11 years, providing fresh concern about the continuing downward spiral of the housing market.”
Yeah – that was it. And no doubt the market also opened down in anticipation of that housing report and was not, in any way, reacting to the President’s speech last night.
Speaking of…
“We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before.”
And as a first step toward addressing that concern, he had his Interior Secretary Ken Salazar cancel oil and gas leases on 77 parcels of federal land in Utah a few weeks ago.
“A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future.”
I suspect our President is somehow equating a drop in tax rates with a transfer of wealth (unless the government really is transferring wealth to the likes of his buddies Tony Rezko and Ted Kennedy). Methinks then he doesn’t agree with such sentiments as:
"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government."
…but why he wants to pick a fight with the guy who lowered the top income tax rates from 90% to 70% is beyond me.
“That is why I have asked Vice President Biden to lead a tough, unprecedented oversight effort – because nobody messes with Joe.”
…and nobody messes with the guy at the bar mumbling into his drink either. That very emphasis of Joe Biden’s role in this so-called stimulus spending probably accounted for at least a few “sell-it-all”s this morning.
“I understand that on any given day, Wall Street may be more comforted by an approach that gives banks bailouts with no strings attached, and that holds nobody accountable for their reckless decisions.”
Putting aside the mindless (although understandable if your exposure to Wall Street is limited to the likes of John Corzine and Tim Geithner) stereotyping at play, I don’t see the Street warming to any bank receiving such bailouts…and as to nobody being held accountable – well that may be partially true but he does know Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac aren’t on Wall Street, doesn’t he?
“Still, this plan will require significant resources from the federal government – and yes, probably more than we’ve already set aside.’
WHAT????
“Given these realities, everyone in this chamber – Democrats and Republicans – will have to sacrifice some worthy priorities for which there are no dollars. And that includes me.”
I didn't watch the speech but did he say that with a straight face? There will not be even a single priority of the President that doesn’t get at least some dollars. Nor will any other prominent Democrat find their stocking empty come budget time.
“…if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.”
Really? So no more increases in cigarette taxes? And gasoline tax increases are now off the table? Or will we just reclassify these as government fees.
“And to respond to an economic crisis that is global in scope, we are working with the nations of the G-20 to … avoid the possibility of escalating protectionism…”
Better yet he could work with his own party and even himself.
“Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.”
Well, we know he didn't learn that phrase going to church in Chicago
“Stocks fell sharply lower this morning after a new report showed that existing home sales fell to their lowest level in 11 years, providing fresh concern about the continuing downward spiral of the housing market.”
Yeah – that was it. And no doubt the market also opened down in anticipation of that housing report and was not, in any way, reacting to the President’s speech last night.
Speaking of…
“We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before.”
And as a first step toward addressing that concern, he had his Interior Secretary Ken Salazar cancel oil and gas leases on 77 parcels of federal land in Utah a few weeks ago.
“A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future.”
I suspect our President is somehow equating a drop in tax rates with a transfer of wealth (unless the government really is transferring wealth to the likes of his buddies Tony Rezko and Ted Kennedy). Methinks then he doesn’t agree with such sentiments as:
"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government."
…but why he wants to pick a fight with the guy who lowered the top income tax rates from 90% to 70% is beyond me.
“That is why I have asked Vice President Biden to lead a tough, unprecedented oversight effort – because nobody messes with Joe.”
…and nobody messes with the guy at the bar mumbling into his drink either. That very emphasis of Joe Biden’s role in this so-called stimulus spending probably accounted for at least a few “sell-it-all”s this morning.
“I understand that on any given day, Wall Street may be more comforted by an approach that gives banks bailouts with no strings attached, and that holds nobody accountable for their reckless decisions.”
Putting aside the mindless (although understandable if your exposure to Wall Street is limited to the likes of John Corzine and Tim Geithner) stereotyping at play, I don’t see the Street warming to any bank receiving such bailouts…and as to nobody being held accountable – well that may be partially true but he does know Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac aren’t on Wall Street, doesn’t he?
“Still, this plan will require significant resources from the federal government – and yes, probably more than we’ve already set aside.’
WHAT????
“Given these realities, everyone in this chamber – Democrats and Republicans – will have to sacrifice some worthy priorities for which there are no dollars. And that includes me.”
I didn't watch the speech but did he say that with a straight face? There will not be even a single priority of the President that doesn’t get at least some dollars. Nor will any other prominent Democrat find their stocking empty come budget time.
“…if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.”
Really? So no more increases in cigarette taxes? And gasoline tax increases are now off the table? Or will we just reclassify these as government fees.
“And to respond to an economic crisis that is global in scope, we are working with the nations of the G-20 to … avoid the possibility of escalating protectionism…”
Better yet he could work with his own party and even himself.
“Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.”
Well, we know he didn't learn that phrase going to church in Chicago
Monday, February 23, 2009
Channeling Dick Cheney
A little more than a month into the Obama Administration and:
- President Obama has left our military presence in Iraq virtually unchanged from the level left by President Bush;
- Obama to Send 17,000 Troops to Afghanistan;
- President Obama has allowed Guantanamo to remain open and continue to hold the prisoners sent there during President Bush’s two terms;
- Obama preserves renditions as counter-terrorism tool;
- Obama Upholds Detainee Policy in Afghanistan
Okay, I’ll ask the question: Is President Obama now a War Criminal?
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Huh??
CNNMoney.com
Stocks sink to 3-month lows
Financials lead a selloff sparked by worries the $787 billion stimulus plan won't go far enough. Automakers in the hot seat.
They think the market is collectively worried that the stimulus DOESN”T go far enough??
Stocks sink to 3-month lows
Financials lead a selloff sparked by worries the $787 billion stimulus plan won't go far enough. Automakers in the hot seat.
They think the market is collectively worried that the stimulus DOESN”T go far enough??
Monday, February 16, 2009
Hurry Up and Wait
Remember when the President scolded us:
“[E]ach day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes…That's why I feel such a sense of urgency about the recovery plan before Congress.”
Well, the so-called stimulus bill passed on Friday, today is Monday and…Obama plans to sign stimulus measure on Tuesday.
So I guess all those people who lost “their jobs, their savings and their homes” over the long weekend…
“[E]ach day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes…That's why I feel such a sense of urgency about the recovery plan before Congress.”
Well, the so-called stimulus bill passed on Friday, today is Monday and…Obama plans to sign stimulus measure on Tuesday.
So I guess all those people who lost “their jobs, their savings and their homes” over the long weekend…
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Inside Insight on What the Gregg Departure Means
Chris Cillizza et al. at The Fix on Washingtonpost.com: Gregg Withdraws as Commerce Nominee :
“This is a cataclysmic shock on what had been the quietest day so far in Washington since Obama took office, and highlights the perils of Obama's efforts to put Republicans -- including a relatively conservative one like Gregg -- into high positions in his administration.”
You mean as opposed to the President’s resounding success with his Democratic nominees?
“This is a cataclysmic shock on what had been the quietest day so far in Washington since Obama took office, and highlights the perils of Obama's efforts to put Republicans -- including a relatively conservative one like Gregg -- into high positions in his administration.”
You mean as opposed to the President’s resounding success with his Democratic nominees?
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
The Obama Glass has some Kool-Aid in it...
...and Ruth Marcus is drinking it: Obama Has Bad Week, But Good Start
Really, she’s serious:
“To everyone out there despairing -- or rejoicing -- about the Obama administration's supposedly rocky start: Settle down. It's actually going rather well.”
For those of us not possessing her remarkable insights, she gives us an analogy to make it clearer:
“Expecting the Obama team to operate perfectly under these conditions is like expecting a first-year med student to perform surgery -- before the stethoscopes have been handed out.”
Great point…although some might nit-pick that the difference between her fictional first-year med student surgeon and Team Obama is that the med student hasn’t been parading the hospital floors telling the patients she’d do a better job than the other surgeons on call.
(But I do like her use of a first-year med student because that invites the contrast between someone who is actually doing something to bring health care to the populace and over-hyped law school grads just talking about the need to bring health care to the populace.)
She then patiently explains to us cretins just why this President is so awesome:
“Consider, also, what the administration has accomplished so far. Before he took office, Obama played a key role in obtaining congressional approval for the second round of bank bailout funding, clearing from his plate a major problem that would otherwise have awaited his arrival.”
His “key role” was telling President Bush that, yes, it would be nice to have that matter resolved before he got to the White House.
“By the end of his first two weeks in office, the president signed into law two major pieces of legislation -- on pay discrimination and children's health care.”
I’m not as impressed as some others with the Ivy League credential but I’ll concede that Harvard Law grads can sign their name. Beyond that I am not aware of any heavy lifting he had to do to get these two pieces of legislation beyond Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and onto his desk.
“By the end of his first month, he will, in all likelihood, have overseen enactment of a stimulus bill that will be about the size, with about the mix of new spending and tax cuts, that he originally proposed.”
I know times change but anyone recall candidate Obama extolling anything near an 800 billion dollar “stimulus”? Here’s what the ever-fawning Ruth Marcus said about a proposal of then-Senator Obama a little more than a year ago:
“Barack Obama: A-minus. I criticized his previous tax plan, but Obama is at the head of the class with an intelligently designed, $120 billion stimulus plan.” Ruth Marcus - Whose Stimulus Makes the Grade?
She concludes:
“So if you're feeling jittery about Obama's start, ask yourself this: Is there another president in recent memory who would have done better?”
Hmm, let me think…Ronald Reagan
Really, she’s serious:
“To everyone out there despairing -- or rejoicing -- about the Obama administration's supposedly rocky start: Settle down. It's actually going rather well.”
For those of us not possessing her remarkable insights, she gives us an analogy to make it clearer:
“Expecting the Obama team to operate perfectly under these conditions is like expecting a first-year med student to perform surgery -- before the stethoscopes have been handed out.”
Great point…although some might nit-pick that the difference between her fictional first-year med student surgeon and Team Obama is that the med student hasn’t been parading the hospital floors telling the patients she’d do a better job than the other surgeons on call.
(But I do like her use of a first-year med student because that invites the contrast between someone who is actually doing something to bring health care to the populace and over-hyped law school grads just talking about the need to bring health care to the populace.)
She then patiently explains to us cretins just why this President is so awesome:
“Consider, also, what the administration has accomplished so far. Before he took office, Obama played a key role in obtaining congressional approval for the second round of bank bailout funding, clearing from his plate a major problem that would otherwise have awaited his arrival.”
His “key role” was telling President Bush that, yes, it would be nice to have that matter resolved before he got to the White House.
“By the end of his first two weeks in office, the president signed into law two major pieces of legislation -- on pay discrimination and children's health care.”
I’m not as impressed as some others with the Ivy League credential but I’ll concede that Harvard Law grads can sign their name. Beyond that I am not aware of any heavy lifting he had to do to get these two pieces of legislation beyond Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and onto his desk.
“By the end of his first month, he will, in all likelihood, have overseen enactment of a stimulus bill that will be about the size, with about the mix of new spending and tax cuts, that he originally proposed.”
I know times change but anyone recall candidate Obama extolling anything near an 800 billion dollar “stimulus”? Here’s what the ever-fawning Ruth Marcus said about a proposal of then-Senator Obama a little more than a year ago:
“Barack Obama: A-minus. I criticized his previous tax plan, but Obama is at the head of the class with an intelligently designed, $120 billion stimulus plan.” Ruth Marcus - Whose Stimulus Makes the Grade?
She concludes:
“So if you're feeling jittery about Obama's start, ask yourself this: Is there another president in recent memory who would have done better?”
Hmm, let me think…Ronald Reagan
Good News in Baseball
Good news if you’re a Nationals fan: Nationals sign Dunn to two-year deal MLB.com: News
Good news if you’re an Oriole fan: Tejada pleads guilty to lying MLB.com: News
…because this guy is no longer an Oriole.
Side Note: What’s particularly galling about all those years with presumptive juicers like Miguel Tejada, Rafael Palmeiro, Brady Anderson, Jay Gibbons and Jason Grimsley; the O’s still sucked!
Good news if you’re an Oriole fan: Tejada pleads guilty to lying MLB.com: News
…because this guy is no longer an Oriole.
Side Note: What’s particularly galling about all those years with presumptive juicers like Miguel Tejada, Rafael Palmeiro, Brady Anderson, Jay Gibbons and Jason Grimsley; the O’s still sucked!
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Corporate Greed Runs Amuck
Classic: Husband of Rep. Solis, Labor nominee, settles tax liens
“The husband of President Obama's choice to head the Labor Department paid about $6,400 Wednesday to settle tax liens that had been outstanding for as long as 16 years against his business, the Obama administration said Thursday."
As a result, today’s hearings on Rep. Solis’ nomination were postponed.
Here’s the spin:
"She's not a partner in that business," Gibbs said. "We're not going to penalize her for her husband's business mistakes….Gibbs said he thought Solis' husband, Sam Sayyad, paid the liens because he owed the taxes, not because of White House pressure.”
Yeah – what a coincidence. Later we read:
“But Sayyad plans to appeal, [White House spokesman Tommy] Vietor said....Vietor said Sayyad believes he had already paid all of his taxes in full."
(But Press Secretary Gibbs said he paid because he owed…)
More spin:
"He said Solis had no reason to know of the liens because her husband's business is a sole proprietorship.”
Perhaps but not for that reason. Don’t know what taxes the liens relate to but as a choice of entity, a Sole Proprietorship gives a spouse (assuming they file jointly) the most detailed look at the proprietor’s business. This is because the business details are reported on a Schedule C as part of the couple’s Income Tax Return. (And, as an aside, California is one of 10 community property states so if the business started after they got married, then it’s also community property.)
Instinct says this probably isn't much and I have no doubts that Rep. Solis will make an absolutely horrid Labor Secretary...so I'm just going to sit back and enjoy yet another example of Liberals setting a bad example.
“The husband of President Obama's choice to head the Labor Department paid about $6,400 Wednesday to settle tax liens that had been outstanding for as long as 16 years against his business, the Obama administration said Thursday."
As a result, today’s hearings on Rep. Solis’ nomination were postponed.
Here’s the spin:
"She's not a partner in that business," Gibbs said. "We're not going to penalize her for her husband's business mistakes….Gibbs said he thought Solis' husband, Sam Sayyad, paid the liens because he owed the taxes, not because of White House pressure.”
Yeah – what a coincidence. Later we read:
“But Sayyad plans to appeal, [White House spokesman Tommy] Vietor said....Vietor said Sayyad believes he had already paid all of his taxes in full."
(But Press Secretary Gibbs said he paid because he owed…)
More spin:
"He said Solis had no reason to know of the liens because her husband's business is a sole proprietorship.”
Perhaps but not for that reason. Don’t know what taxes the liens relate to but as a choice of entity, a Sole Proprietorship gives a spouse (assuming they file jointly) the most detailed look at the proprietor’s business. This is because the business details are reported on a Schedule C as part of the couple’s Income Tax Return. (And, as an aside, California is one of 10 community property states so if the business started after they got married, then it’s also community property.)
Instinct says this probably isn't much and I have no doubts that Rep. Solis will make an absolutely horrid Labor Secretary...so I'm just going to sit back and enjoy yet another example of Liberals setting a bad example.
Wait a minute; You Mean He's NOT the Messiah?
From the same mind that gave us this:
“…this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it — … there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.” "...they’re not just coming out limp and dead..."
Gives us this admission:
“There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know” At Prayer Breakfast
Even E.J. Dionne has to admit today : “No occupant of the White House has ever been able to walk on water.”
Who will tell the people?
(h/t NRO)
“…this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it — … there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.” "...they’re not just coming out limp and dead..."
Gives us this admission:
“There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know” At Prayer Breakfast
Even E.J. Dionne has to admit today : “No occupant of the White House has ever been able to walk on water.”
Who will tell the people?
(h/t NRO)
You Do the Math
Our President:
"And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs…That's why I feel such a sense of urgency about the recovery plan before Congress. With it, we will create or save more than 3 million jobs over the next two years." Barack Obama - The Action Americans Need
Presumably the 3 million saved would be among the 5 million otherwise lost so...$900 billion and we still lose 2 million jobs?
"And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs…That's why I feel such a sense of urgency about the recovery plan before Congress. With it, we will create or save more than 3 million jobs over the next two years." Barack Obama - The Action Americans Need
Presumably the 3 million saved would be among the 5 million otherwise lost so...$900 billion and we still lose 2 million jobs?
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Coincidently, Utah didn't vote for Change
Words:
“…Obama said recent criticisms of it "echo the very same failed economic theories that led us into this crisis in the first place: the notion that …we can ignore fundamental challenges like energy independence…”Obama Defends Stimulus in Effort to Get Bill Through Congress
Action:
“Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is canceling oil and gas leases on 77 parcels of federal land in Utah…” Interior Secretary Cancels Leases on Federal Land in Utah -
“…Obama said recent criticisms of it "echo the very same failed economic theories that led us into this crisis in the first place: the notion that …we can ignore fundamental challenges like energy independence…”Obama Defends Stimulus in Effort to Get Bill Through Congress
Action:
“Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is canceling oil and gas leases on 77 parcels of federal land in Utah…” Interior Secretary Cancels Leases on Federal Land in Utah -
It's different when this President does it
That was then:
"Jumpstart the Economy
“Provide $50 billion to Jumpstart the Economy and Prevent 1 Million Americans from Losing Their Jobs: This relief would include a $25 billion State Growth Fund to prevent state and local cuts in health, education, housing, and heating assistance or counterproductive increases in property taxes, tolls or fees. The Obama-Biden relief plan will also include $25 billion in a Jobs and Growth Fund to prevent cutbacks in road and bridge maintenance and fund school repair - all to save more than 1 million jobs in danger of being cut." Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need Economy
This is now:
Obama Defends Stimulus in Effort to Get Bill Through Congress
“Obama urged Congress to act quickly on the stimulus package, which has come under attack from Senate Republicans and some Democrats alarmed by its roughly $900 billion price tag….Saying he feels "a sense of urgency" about the plan to save or create more than 3 million jobs…”
So, for an additional $850 billion, the President now thinks he can save – not create – an additional 2 million jobs – jobs that somehow were once created without such a stimulus.
…and do you think he is talking to me?
“Apparently referring to Republican foes of the stimulus plan, Obama said recent criticisms of it "echo the very same failed economic theories that led us into this crisis in the first place…”
For the past 8 years, the Left has criticized the so-called “tax cuts for the rich” and the Right has been critical of the massive deficit spending. The Obama Plan promises tax cuts and massive deficit spending so I’m not really sure where he is going with all of that unless he really means this:
“...the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems, that we can ignore fundamental challenges like energy independence and the high cost of health care, that we can somehow deal with this in a piecemeal fashion and still expect our economy and our country to thrive."
Yeah – if only President Bush had mandated a few more windmills and imposed price controls on health care to go along with his tax cuts…
"Jumpstart the Economy
“Provide $50 billion to Jumpstart the Economy and Prevent 1 Million Americans from Losing Their Jobs: This relief would include a $25 billion State Growth Fund to prevent state and local cuts in health, education, housing, and heating assistance or counterproductive increases in property taxes, tolls or fees. The Obama-Biden relief plan will also include $25 billion in a Jobs and Growth Fund to prevent cutbacks in road and bridge maintenance and fund school repair - all to save more than 1 million jobs in danger of being cut." Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need Economy
This is now:
Obama Defends Stimulus in Effort to Get Bill Through Congress
“Obama urged Congress to act quickly on the stimulus package, which has come under attack from Senate Republicans and some Democrats alarmed by its roughly $900 billion price tag….Saying he feels "a sense of urgency" about the plan to save or create more than 3 million jobs…”
So, for an additional $850 billion, the President now thinks he can save – not create – an additional 2 million jobs – jobs that somehow were once created without such a stimulus.
…and do you think he is talking to me?
“Apparently referring to Republican foes of the stimulus plan, Obama said recent criticisms of it "echo the very same failed economic theories that led us into this crisis in the first place…”
For the past 8 years, the Left has criticized the so-called “tax cuts for the rich” and the Right has been critical of the massive deficit spending. The Obama Plan promises tax cuts and massive deficit spending so I’m not really sure where he is going with all of that unless he really means this:
“...the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems, that we can ignore fundamental challenges like energy independence and the high cost of health care, that we can somehow deal with this in a piecemeal fashion and still expect our economy and our country to thrive."
Yeah – if only President Bush had mandated a few more windmills and imposed price controls on health care to go along with his tax cuts…
A Stimulating Subject
Strange headline in the Post today: Senate Lacks Votes to Pass Stimulus
“Senate Democratic leaders conceded yesterday that they do not have the votes to pass the stimulus bill as currently written and said that to gain bipartisan support; they will seek to cut provisions that would not provide an immediate boost to the economy.”
Senate Democrats have 58 votes – not quite filibuster-proof but, beyond Senator Shelby, I’ve heard of no real threat to resort to a filibuster. Indeed, the article makes no such reference but we do later learn:
"We're trying to find a way to reach 60" votes, Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), the Senate's chief vote counter, told reporters. "A number of Democrats have said they want to see changes to the bill before they can vote for it."
I admit it, I’m confused; who owns this so-called stimulus package:
Initially:
“That is why I have moved quickly to work with my economic team and leaders of both parties on an American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan that will immediately jumpstart job creation and long-term growth.” Economy - whitehouse.gov
Which predictably led to:
House Passes Obama Stimulus Package
“The House approved an $819 billion stimulus package on a near party-line vote yesterday, a plan breathtaking in size and scope that President Obama hopes to make the cornerstone of his efforts to resuscitate the staggering economy.
“Obama engaged in an all-out lobbying push for the bill, which is among the most expensive pieces of legislation ever to move through Congress, and marked a big victory for his presidency a little more than a week into his term.”
(Ed. Note: An overwhelmingly Democratic House passes a spending bill crammed with outlays for pet-Democratic projects and that marks a “big victory” for a Democratic president? Talk about the bigotry of low expectations.)
But is there trouble in paradise:
“On nearly every major issue — … the stimulus bill to tax cuts … — Pelosi has voiced and even pushed through the House differing positions from the President, at times to the embarrassment of Democrats.” Obama vs. Pelosi: Can the President Work With the Democrats? - TIME
Which may be why the Obama staff encouraged defiance of Pelosi - Politico.com
This is because:
“The House plan largely reflects Obama's desires, but after zero GOP support, he suggested the House plan was hardly perfect.
"I hope that we can continue to strengthen this plan before it gets to my desk," Obama said.” Obama seeks GOP help for recovery bill - Capitol Hill- msnbc.com
But of course, true to his campaigning ways, just exactly how he wants to “strengthen this plan” is still a bit murky.
“Senate Democratic leaders conceded yesterday that they do not have the votes to pass the stimulus bill as currently written and said that to gain bipartisan support; they will seek to cut provisions that would not provide an immediate boost to the economy.”
Senate Democrats have 58 votes – not quite filibuster-proof but, beyond Senator Shelby, I’ve heard of no real threat to resort to a filibuster. Indeed, the article makes no such reference but we do later learn:
"We're trying to find a way to reach 60" votes, Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), the Senate's chief vote counter, told reporters. "A number of Democrats have said they want to see changes to the bill before they can vote for it."
I admit it, I’m confused; who owns this so-called stimulus package:
Initially:
“That is why I have moved quickly to work with my economic team and leaders of both parties on an American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan that will immediately jumpstart job creation and long-term growth.” Economy - whitehouse.gov
Which predictably led to:
House Passes Obama Stimulus Package
“The House approved an $819 billion stimulus package on a near party-line vote yesterday, a plan breathtaking in size and scope that President Obama hopes to make the cornerstone of his efforts to resuscitate the staggering economy.
“Obama engaged in an all-out lobbying push for the bill, which is among the most expensive pieces of legislation ever to move through Congress, and marked a big victory for his presidency a little more than a week into his term.”
(Ed. Note: An overwhelmingly Democratic House passes a spending bill crammed with outlays for pet-Democratic projects and that marks a “big victory” for a Democratic president? Talk about the bigotry of low expectations.)
But is there trouble in paradise:
“On nearly every major issue — … the stimulus bill to tax cuts … — Pelosi has voiced and even pushed through the House differing positions from the President, at times to the embarrassment of Democrats.” Obama vs. Pelosi: Can the President Work With the Democrats? - TIME
Which may be why the Obama staff encouraged defiance of Pelosi - Politico.com
This is because:
“The House plan largely reflects Obama's desires, but after zero GOP support, he suggested the House plan was hardly perfect.
"I hope that we can continue to strengthen this plan before it gets to my desk," Obama said.” Obama seeks GOP help for recovery bill - Capitol Hill- msnbc.com
But of course, true to his campaigning ways, just exactly how he wants to “strengthen this plan” is still a bit murky.
Monday, February 02, 2009
The Israeli Election
On today’s front page of the Washington Post, Griff Witte attempts to give an overview of the dynamics of Israeli politics a week before elections there: Israel's Key Election Issue: Did War End Too Soon?
Now, Soccer Dad has already written an extensive and typically informative review of this article but there is always room for more in a Griff Witte piece. For starters, I love the semantics he sometimes employs:
“The war, initiated to stop Hamas rocket fire that has persisted for years, was viewed by many here as motivated at least in part by electoral politics.”
Yeah…and Poland initiated WWII to stop Germany. The firing of rockets into a country is generally regarded as an act of war. That Israel may have been slow to react doesn’t mean this reaction wasn’t timely to the Hamas provocation.
“The operation in Gaza drew condemnation abroad for the high Palestinian death toll, and praise at home for the relatively low number of Israelis killed.”
The operation in Gaza would have drawn condemnation from abroad had it just been about delivering Matzah Balls (i.e. cultural imperialism) and I believe it was the perception that Israel was actually kicking some a** that inspired the praise at home.
I write that because of this observation from Mr. Witte:
“In recent days, former prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who according to polls appears poised to reclaim his old job, has argued in speeches and interviews that his political rivals ended the war prematurely.”
Extending the fight inevitably leads to a higher death toll so ending the war is a good way to keep the number of Israelis killed “relatively low”. But if the polls are to be believed that won’t prove to be a winning strategy on Election Day.
“The argument reflects the reality that elections here often turn on a single question: Who looks tougher on national security?”
Well, if that’s true, then Mr. Netanyahu should have spent much of the last two decades as Prime Minister. From my vantage point, he has long been the toughest major party guy on national security. (I really don’t know much about his politics beyond what I’ve seen from him on TV and on TV nobody is asking him his position on retirement plans.) The problem is that elections in Israel (and here) don’t turn enough on that single question.
I very much remember Mr. Netanyahu’s constant presence on American TV as Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister during the first Gulf War. A key component of Iraq’s war plan was broadcast to be flinging scud missiles at Israel and hoping for an Israeli reaction. He was an impressive voice of calm and competence and I think convinced many that Israel was going to be mindful of the bigger picture during the conflict and react only to the extent necessary. Israel didn’t take the bait (although they would have been well within their rights to also pummel Saddam’s forces) and the coalition held.
That coalition was a well-coordinated one that thoroughly beat the crap out of the ironically described Iraqi “Elite” Republican Guard. But you seek a UN Resolution; you’re stuck with complying with that UN Resolution. The coalition was only tasked with getting Iraq out of Kuwait. So, we stopped well short of what we could have accomplished and, as the subsequent years proved out, should have accomplished.
I think Mr. Netanyahu remembers that lesson all too well. Good luck to him next week.
Now, Soccer Dad has already written an extensive and typically informative review of this article but there is always room for more in a Griff Witte piece. For starters, I love the semantics he sometimes employs:
“The war, initiated to stop Hamas rocket fire that has persisted for years, was viewed by many here as motivated at least in part by electoral politics.”
Yeah…and Poland initiated WWII to stop Germany. The firing of rockets into a country is generally regarded as an act of war. That Israel may have been slow to react doesn’t mean this reaction wasn’t timely to the Hamas provocation.
“The operation in Gaza drew condemnation abroad for the high Palestinian death toll, and praise at home for the relatively low number of Israelis killed.”
The operation in Gaza would have drawn condemnation from abroad had it just been about delivering Matzah Balls (i.e. cultural imperialism) and I believe it was the perception that Israel was actually kicking some a** that inspired the praise at home.
I write that because of this observation from Mr. Witte:
“In recent days, former prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who according to polls appears poised to reclaim his old job, has argued in speeches and interviews that his political rivals ended the war prematurely.”
Extending the fight inevitably leads to a higher death toll so ending the war is a good way to keep the number of Israelis killed “relatively low”. But if the polls are to be believed that won’t prove to be a winning strategy on Election Day.
“The argument reflects the reality that elections here often turn on a single question: Who looks tougher on national security?”
Well, if that’s true, then Mr. Netanyahu should have spent much of the last two decades as Prime Minister. From my vantage point, he has long been the toughest major party guy on national security. (I really don’t know much about his politics beyond what I’ve seen from him on TV and on TV nobody is asking him his position on retirement plans.) The problem is that elections in Israel (and here) don’t turn enough on that single question.
I very much remember Mr. Netanyahu’s constant presence on American TV as Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister during the first Gulf War. A key component of Iraq’s war plan was broadcast to be flinging scud missiles at Israel and hoping for an Israeli reaction. He was an impressive voice of calm and competence and I think convinced many that Israel was going to be mindful of the bigger picture during the conflict and react only to the extent necessary. Israel didn’t take the bait (although they would have been well within their rights to also pummel Saddam’s forces) and the coalition held.
That coalition was a well-coordinated one that thoroughly beat the crap out of the ironically described Iraqi “Elite” Republican Guard. But you seek a UN Resolution; you’re stuck with complying with that UN Resolution. The coalition was only tasked with getting Iraq out of Kuwait. So, we stopped well short of what we could have accomplished and, as the subsequent years proved out, should have accomplished.
I think Mr. Netanyahu remembers that lesson all too well. Good luck to him next week.
A Different rendition of Rendition
Remember the movie “Rendition”? Meryl Streep? Reese Witherspoon?
That’s okay – I didn’t see it either. But I do remember those annoying reviews which seemed to coalesce around the idea that even though the movie sucked, the message was an important one:
“So “Rendition” is a well-meaning, honorable movie. Which is not to say that it is a very good one. …
“But all its clumsy efforts are toward an honest and difficult goal, which is to use the resources of mainstream movie-making to get viewers thinking about a moral crisis that many of us would prefer to ignore. Of course it’s disappointing when such efforts don’t succeed, but I wouldn’t want to live in a country where filmmakers never tried.” When a Single Story Has a Thousand Sides - NYTimes.com
“How do you take one of the most pressing issues of the day — the American government flying terror suspects off to foreign countries where they can be tortured and held indefinitely without benefit of trial — and turn it into a turgid, obvious melodrama? See “Rendition” if you really want to know.” ‘Rendition’ feels like a Lifetime movie - At the movies- msnbc.com
“Rendition is a fictional drama, not a documentary. But it reflects known facts about rendition - a policy, sanctioned by the US president, which involves the systematic, wilful violation of the US international laws constitution and the Bill of Rights and the rule of law; as well as being illegal under the against kidnapping and torture.” Rendition, the movie/ guardian.co.uk
I especially like that last one. Here’s more from that same review:
“Watch this film. It brings home the lawlessness and inhumanity of the so-called war on terror. It reveals why so much of the world hates the hypocrisy of the US, which preaches liberty but often practises tyranny. It exposes the way the US government is trampling on human rights. It shows why President Bush should be put on trial at the International Criminal Court on charges of kidnapping and torture.”
Well, apparently things have Changed in the last two weeks:
Obama preserves renditions as counter-terrorism tool - Los Angeles Times
“The decision to preserve the program did not draw major protests, even among human rights groups. Leaders of such organizations attribute that to a sense that nations need certain tools to combat terrorism.” (h/t NRO)
So...maybe a sequel wherein a grateful world is taught by a new-and-incredibly brilliant US President that keeping us all safe from terrorism is a complex process. Properly chastened by this exposure of their incredible naïveté, his fellow citizens of the world agree that he should be in charge of everything.
Of course it’s disappointing that we’re not already there but I wouldn’t want to live in a country where filmmakers stop trying to get us there.
That’s okay – I didn’t see it either. But I do remember those annoying reviews which seemed to coalesce around the idea that even though the movie sucked, the message was an important one:
“So “Rendition” is a well-meaning, honorable movie. Which is not to say that it is a very good one. …
“But all its clumsy efforts are toward an honest and difficult goal, which is to use the resources of mainstream movie-making to get viewers thinking about a moral crisis that many of us would prefer to ignore. Of course it’s disappointing when such efforts don’t succeed, but I wouldn’t want to live in a country where filmmakers never tried.” When a Single Story Has a Thousand Sides - NYTimes.com
“How do you take one of the most pressing issues of the day — the American government flying terror suspects off to foreign countries where they can be tortured and held indefinitely without benefit of trial — and turn it into a turgid, obvious melodrama? See “Rendition” if you really want to know.” ‘Rendition’ feels like a Lifetime movie - At the movies- msnbc.com
“Rendition is a fictional drama, not a documentary. But it reflects known facts about rendition - a policy, sanctioned by the US president, which involves the systematic, wilful violation of the US international laws constitution and the Bill of Rights and the rule of law; as well as being illegal under the against kidnapping and torture.” Rendition, the movie/ guardian.co.uk
I especially like that last one. Here’s more from that same review:
“Watch this film. It brings home the lawlessness and inhumanity of the so-called war on terror. It reveals why so much of the world hates the hypocrisy of the US, which preaches liberty but often practises tyranny. It exposes the way the US government is trampling on human rights. It shows why President Bush should be put on trial at the International Criminal Court on charges of kidnapping and torture.”
Well, apparently things have Changed in the last two weeks:
Obama preserves renditions as counter-terrorism tool - Los Angeles Times
“The decision to preserve the program did not draw major protests, even among human rights groups. Leaders of such organizations attribute that to a sense that nations need certain tools to combat terrorism.” (h/t NRO)
So...maybe a sequel wherein a grateful world is taught by a new-and-incredibly brilliant US President that keeping us all safe from terrorism is a complex process. Properly chastened by this exposure of their incredible naïveté, his fellow citizens of the world agree that he should be in charge of everything.
Of course it’s disappointing that we’re not already there but I wouldn’t want to live in a country where filmmakers stop trying to get us there.
Everyone's a critic
A recent quote:
“…via…arrangements that shut down traffic and interfere with ordinary life in other ways.”
A legitimate critique of what America would like if Al Gore ran things? Nope – here’s the full quote:
“The LAT reports that the elections can only be held in Iraq via security arrangements that shut down traffic and interfere with ordinary life in other ways.” University of Michigan Professor, Juan Cole at his web site Informed Comment: Iraqi Voters select provincial Councils in Saturday's Vote (I know, that’s a cheap shot at Michigan)
Great observation by a reader over at NRO:
“Perhaps we should see if Juan thinks that Obama's inauguration ceremony was a sham since "[inaugurations] can only be held in [the United States] via security arrangements that shut down traffic and interfere with ordinary life in other ways."
Of course, anyone interested in staying informed about current events probably already knows to avoid Professor Cole
“…via…arrangements that shut down traffic and interfere with ordinary life in other ways.”
A legitimate critique of what America would like if Al Gore ran things? Nope – here’s the full quote:
“The LAT reports that the elections can only be held in Iraq via security arrangements that shut down traffic and interfere with ordinary life in other ways.” University of Michigan Professor, Juan Cole at his web site Informed Comment: Iraqi Voters select provincial Councils in Saturday's Vote (I know, that’s a cheap shot at Michigan)
Great observation by a reader over at NRO:
“Perhaps we should see if Juan thinks that Obama's inauguration ceremony was a sham since "[inaugurations] can only be held in [the United States] via security arrangements that shut down traffic and interfere with ordinary life in other ways."
Of course, anyone interested in staying informed about current events probably already knows to avoid Professor Cole
